Latest news with #HeidiLarson
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jamestown Public Schools won't hold special election for referendum
Jun. 7—JAMESTOWN — The Jamestown Public School District will not hold a special election for a referendum to build a new elementary school that addresses declining future enrollment and facility needs. Superintendent Rob Lech said at a special meeting of the Jamestown Public School Board on Thursday, June 5, that results of a community-wide survey show that it is not the right time to make a request for a referendum. "We have reached out to the community and said, 'We want your feedback,'" he said. "I think it's important that we listen to what that feedback was." School Board President Heidi Larson said Thursday was the last day the school board could call for a special election before a state law goes into effect on Aug. 1 that requires votes on referendums to be held at either a primary or general election. "We either had to move forward before August 1 or at a primary or a general election," Lech said. A community survey was conducted this spring to help guide the school board in determining future actions. The survey gathered feedback on the school district's two options for a potential referendum to build a new elementary school at the Washington Elementary School site. Washington Elementary School officially closed in May. Beginning in the 2025-26 school year, the school district will operate four elementary schools with seven elementary classrooms of each grade level for K-5. If the school district continued to operate five elementary schools, the general fund would have been projected to dry up by the 2029-30 school year, The Jamestown Sun reported in September. With the district already capped for its general fund levy, the cost to operate the same facilities and staff as the 2023-24 school year would result in a complete loss of the general fund balance by the 2029-30 school year. Closing Washington saves the school district $1.3 million in annual operating costs. The school board approved on March 3 a new boundary system for the elementary schools. The plan expands the Lincoln Elementary School boundary to the west into the current Washington boundary, Louis L'Amour expands to the north into the current Lincoln boundary south of the railroad, and Roosevelt Elementary expands to the west into the Lincoln boundary south of the railroad to the James River. In the future, the school board could bring a referendum forward for a new elementary school to address declining future enrollment and facility needs. The referendum options are: * Option one: Close Lincoln Elementary School and build a new elementary school on the Washington school site for Lincoln students within the new boundaries. The estimated cost is $23 million to build the elementary school with two classrooms for each grade in K-5. * Option two: Close Lincoln and Louis L'Amour elementary schools and build a new elementary school on the Washington school site large enough to serve students and staff from the two schools. The estimated cost is $29 million to build the elementary school with three classrooms for each grade in K-5. If the school board decides to move forward with either option, 60% voter approval would be required. City and rural residents in the school district would be eligible to vote. For option one, the estimated property tax increase would be $87 per year for a house with a market value of $100,000, $97 per year for commercial property, 98 cents per year for each cropland acre and 20 cents per year for each noncropland acre. For option two, the estimated property tax increase would be $110 per year for a house with a market value of $100,000, $122 per year for commercial property, $1.24 per year for each cropland acre and 25 cents per year for each noncropland acre. The school district worked with School Perceptions to conduct the survey that received 1,173 respondents, or a 14.1% response rate, with a plus or minus 2.92% statistical margin of error. School Perceptions helps educational leaders gather, organize and use data to make strategic decisions, according to its website. The survey results show 81% of JPS staff, 51% of parents with a student enrolled in the school district and 44% of nonparents/nonstaff would support a plan to replace one or more of the remaining elementary schools with a new facility. Daren Sievers, project manager at School Perceptions, said survey respondents were asked which option for a referendum they would support. Survey results show 26% of JPS staff, 19% of parents with a student enrolled in the district and 20% of nonparents/nonstaff would support only option one. Survey results show 12% of JPS staff, 9% of parents and 8% of nonparents/nonstaff would only support option two. Survey results also show 42% of JPS staff, 29% of parents and 22% of nonparents/staff would support either option. Sievers said School Perceptions added the results for the support of either option to the results of supporting options one or two. The survey results then show 68% of JPS staff, 48% of parents and 42% of nonparents/nonstaff would support option one, and 54% of JPS staff, 38% of parents and 30% of nonparents/nonstaff would support option two. Sievers said School Perceptions took into account that 20% of parents and 80% of nonparents/nonstaff would cast a ballot. With that weighted representation, survey results show 43.2% of parents and nonparents/nonstaff would "definitely" or "probably" support a bond referendum for option one, and 31.6% of parents and nonparents/nonstaff would "definitely" or "probably" support a referendum for option two. Each result has a plus or minus 2.92% statistical margin of error. School board member Aaron Roberts said the board should see analysis on comments from survey respondents. He said the comments would help the school board understand what issues need to be addressed moving forward. School board member Jason Rohr said survey results also show areas that the school district can improve its communication on. Survey respondents were asked how the school district is doing in four areas — delivering high-quality education, keeping the public informed, managing funds appropriately and building pride in the community. Survey results show about 68% of respondents chose "great" or "good" for delivering high-quality education, 54% chose "great" or "good" for keeping the public informed, 45% chose "great" or "good" for managing funds appropriately and 56% chose "great" or "good" for building pride in the community. Larson said the survey results will be referred to the facilities committee and the school board could hold a retreat later to discuss the school district's next steps.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Questioning the risks and benefits of vaccines isn't spreading misinformation
At the heart of the COVID pandemic, I interviewed Heidi Larson, founding director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, and she surprised me. It was during a time of COVID vaccine mandates when it was clear to me that the vaccines were saving lives even if they didn't often prevent spread and shouldn't be mandated. I expected her to climb on the 'misinformation' bandwagon but she said she didn't like the term at all. The way to discuss a vaccine, she said, is to ask your patient how they feel about it and go from there, addressing patient concerns and developing a risk-benefit analysis to discuss. I couldn't agree more. And one of the first questions I always ask is what a patient's reaction has been to previous vaccines. I have found that there is a pattern, that those who don't tolerate one vaccine may not tolerate another. In fact, a friend of mine who is a physician believes that there are so-called vaccine families who may be more susceptible to vaccine injuries by far than the general public. She believes that a close relative of hers may have gotten a neurological disease following a vaccine. We should be using advances in genetic testing and artificial intelligence to help us ferret out who is most at risk for significant side effects from a particular vaccine. This would only help me as a physician to have the Heidi Larson-type of discussion in my doctor's office. I could discuss risks and benefits in a more sophisticated way if I better understood a patient's risk versus their protection against a given virus or bacteria. Consider that none other than Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett-Helair, co-developer of the COVID-19 vaccine and renowned viral immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece last June in STAT saying that more empathy is needed for those who report experiencing long-term side effects from the COVID vaccines. 'People who speak out about how they feel after getting a vaccine should not be dismissed or assumed to be anti-vaxxers,' she wrote. 'For starters, they deserve empathy from their doctors and other health care providers, as well as from those who set and drive vaccine policy.' Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that vaccine use in the 20th and 21st centuries has cut down dramatically on death and disease and has saved hundreds of millions of lives, beginning with the smallpox vaccine which wiped the disease off the planet and on to the polio and measles vaccines which have also had enormous impact in terms of lives saved. Even less impactful vaccines, such as flu or COVID vaccines, still decrease severity and visits to urgent care and hospitalizations by hundreds of thousands of cases in the U.S. per year. Vaccines are not just a matter of personal choice, they are also powerful public health tools, where the goal is to protect a community from a pathogen including those who are unable to take a certain kind of vaccine (live virus) or are unable to mount a protective response. But vaccines have side effects, and we need to consider who is more prone to these side effects and who isn't. Neither safety nor efficacy is one size fits all. And now we finally have the technology available to help us start to tell the difference. I have written about the 1976 swine flu fiasco, when 40 million people received a hastily made flu vaccine for a virus that never took hold and about 1 in 100,000 recipients appeared to acquire Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result. This tragedy shook public confidence in vaccines and led to far more study and transparency and a vaccine registry for reporting potential vaccine injury. But an important question that was never addressed (because the technology didn't exist at the time) is why some people got GBS while others didn't. The COVID vaccines are very different because the virus was killing millions and a vaccine (to save millions) was desperately needed. However, the way that the vaccine was pushed and mandated also helped cause an erosion of confidence in public health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a disrupter and a reformer. But he needs to respect the effectiveness of the amazing vaccines we have. At the same time, pushing for even more transparency and study is by no means a bad thing, provided that public confidence in one of our greatest public health tools is restored rather than further eroded. Marc Siegel, M.D., is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health. He is a Fox News medical correspondent and author of 'COVID; The Politics of Fear and the Power of Science.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Questioning the risks and benefits of vaccines isn't spreading misinformation
At the heart of the COVID pandemic, I interviewed Heidi Larson, founding director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, and she surprised me. It was during a time of COVID vaccine mandates when it was clear to me that the vaccines were saving lives even if they didn't often prevent spread and shouldn't be mandated. I expected her to climb on the 'misinformation' bandwagon but she said she didn't like the term at all. The way to discuss a vaccine, she said, is to ask your patient how they feel about it and go from there, addressing patient concerns and developing a risk-benefit analysis to discuss. I couldn't agree more. And one of the first questions I always ask is what a patient's reaction has been to previous vaccines. I have found that there is a pattern, that those who don't tolerate one vaccine may not tolerate another. In fact, a friend of mine who is a physician believes that there are so-called vaccine families who may be more susceptible to vaccine injuries by far than the general public. She believes that a close relative of hers may have gotten a neurological disease following a vaccine. We should be using advances in genetic testing and artificial intelligence to help us ferret out who is most at risk for significant side effects from a particular vaccine. This would only help me as a physician to have the Heidi Larson-type of discussion in my doctor's office. I could discuss risks and benefits in a more sophisticated way if I better understood a patient's risk versus their protection against a given virus or bacteria. Consider that none other than Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett-Helair, co-developer of the COVID-19 vaccine and renowned viral immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece last June in STAT saying that more empathy is needed for those who report experiencing long-term side effects from the COVID vaccines. 'People who speak out about how they feel after getting a vaccine should not be dismissed or assumed to be anti-vaxxers,' she wrote. 'For starters, they deserve empathy from their doctors and other health care providers, as well as from those who set and drive vaccine policy.' Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that vaccine use in the 20th and 21st centuries has cut down dramatically on death and disease and has saved hundreds of millions of lives, beginning with the smallpox vaccine which wiped the disease off the planet and on to the polio and measles vaccines which have also had enormous impact in terms of lives saved. Even less impactful vaccines, such as flu or COVID vaccines, still decrease severity and visits to urgent care and hospitalizations by hundreds of thousands of cases in the U.S. per year. Vaccines are not just a matter of personal choice, they are also powerful public health tools, where the goal is to protect a community from a pathogen including those who are unable to take a certain kind of vaccine (live virus) or are unable to mount a protective response. But vaccines have side effects, and we need to consider who is more prone to these side effects and who isn't. Neither safety nor efficacy is one size fits all. And now we finally have the technology available to help us start to tell the difference. I have written about the 1976 swine flu fiasco, when 40 million people received a hastily made flu vaccine for a virus that never took hold and about 1 in 100,000 recipients appeared to acquire Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result. This tragedy shook public confidence in vaccines and led to far more study and transparency and a vaccine registry for reporting potential vaccine injury. But an important question that was never addressed (because the technology didn't exist at the time) is why some people got GBS while others didn't. The COVID vaccines are very different because the virus was killing millions and a vaccine (to save millions) was desperately needed. However, the way that the vaccine was pushed and mandated also helped cause an erosion of confidence in public health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a disrupter and a reformer. But he needs to respect the effectiveness of the amazing vaccines we have. At the same time, pushing for even more transparency and study is by no means a bad thing, provided that public confidence in one of our greatest public health tools is restored rather than further eroded. Marc Siegel, M.D., is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health. He is a Fox News medical correspondent and author of 'COVID; The Politics of Fear and the Power of Science.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-02-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Questioning the risks and benefits of vaccines isn't spreading misinformation
At the heart of the COVID pandemic, I interviewed Heidi Larson, founding director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, and she surprised me. It was during a time of COVID vaccine mandates when it was clear to me that the vaccines were saving lives even if they didn't often prevent spread and shouldn't be mandated. I expected her to climb on the 'misinformation' bandwagon but she said she didn't like the term at all. The way to discuss a vaccine, she said, is to ask your patient how they feel about it and go from there, addressing patient concerns and developing a risk-benefit analysis to discuss. I couldn't agree more. And one of the first questions I always ask is what a patient's reaction has been to previous vaccines. I have found that there is a pattern, that those who don't tolerate one vaccine may not tolerate another. In fact, a friend of mine who is a physician believes that there are so-called vaccine families who may be more susceptible to vaccine injuries by far than the general public. She believes that a close relative of hers may have gotten a neurological disease following a vaccine. We should be using advances in genetic testing and artificial intelligence to help us ferret out who is most at risk for significant side effects from a particular vaccine. This would only help me as a physician to have the Heidi Larson-type of discussion in my doctor's office. I could discuss risks and benefits in a more sophisticated way if I better understood a patient's risk versus their protection against a given virus or bacteria. Consider that none other than Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett-Helair, co-developer of the COVID-19 vaccine and renowned viral immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece last June in STAT saying that more empathy is needed for those who report experiencing long-term side effects from the COVID vaccines. 'People who speak out about how they feel after getting a vaccine should not be dismissed or assumed to be anti-vaxxers,' she wrote. 'For starters, they deserve empathy from their doctors and other health care providers, as well as from those who set and drive vaccine policy.' Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that vaccine use in the 20th and 21st centuries has cut down dramatically on death and disease and has saved hundreds of millions of lives, beginning with the smallpox vaccine which wiped the disease off the planet and on to the polio and measles vaccines which have also had enormous impact in terms of lives saved. Even less impactful vaccines, such as flu or COVID vaccines, still decrease severity and visits to urgent care and hospitalizations by hundreds of thousands of cases in the U.S. per year. Vaccines are not just a matter of personal choice, they are also powerful public health tools, where the goal is to protect a community from a pathogen including those who are unable to take a certain kind of vaccine (live virus) or are unable to mount a protective response. But vaccines have side effects, and we need to consider who is more prone to these side effects and who isn't. Neither safety nor efficacy is one size fits all. And now we finally have the technology available to help us start to tell the difference. I have written about the 1976 swine flu fiasco, when 40 million people received a hastily made flu vaccine for a virus that never took hold and about 1 in 100,000 recipients appeared to acquire Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result. This tragedy shook public confidence in vaccines and led to far more study and transparency and a vaccine registry for reporting potential vaccine injury. But an important question that was never addressed (because the technology didn't exist at the time) is why some people got GBS while others didn't. The COVID vaccines are very different because the virus was killing millions and a vaccine (to save millions) was desperately needed. However, the way that the vaccine was pushed and mandated also helped cause an erosion of confidence in public health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a disrupter and a reformer. But he needs to respect the effectiveness of the amazing vaccines we have. At the same time, pushing for even more transparency and study is by no means a bad thing, provided that public confidence in one of our greatest public health tools is restored rather than further eroded.
